tv [untitled] December 13, 2013 4:30pm-5:01pm PST
there is also the issue of scale and design of the building. we defer 2 and support the liberty hill neighbors and you will hear more about that from steve williams. what we have agreed to: construction hours. halt time for workup until point that work goes indoors because of our after school classes which frequently include performances. the developer would like 6 throughout the construction period. we agree that quiet construction but nothing agreed to. my understanding that it can result in construction noise almost 10 decibels lower. third, the marsh believes a bar would create conflicts from the
get-go. it also would help prevent us from setting a relation with the building and conditional use hearings and finally the special restrictions to record these conditions. i just want to end with a point that we just become aware of. that is these projects coming through ascribed as having on-site affordability. they are coming back and paying their way outside the affordability. this is permitted bylaw and i encourage you to talk about this. these skyrocketing fees for these units are making it more affordable to buy their way out of this process.
affordable housing already lags and allows them to pay an affordable system and paying on-siten insures this lag between affordability and new market rate construction is going to become even more disparate. the second point affordable housing is to include the affordable housing on-site. it was to provide two affordable units on-site. the marsh, the mission and i hope the board will feel better about this project if mr. rutgers could state that he would build these on-site. i'm very happy to answer any questions you have. >> i actually have some questions, you ran through your
details of your proposals very quickly. i was trying to process them as you were running through them. i think it's no. the disclosure statement. you referenced the prior live work prior statement. is that a verbatim statement used? >> i can't submit this. >> the question is the language in the first column no. 4? >> the column in the left column is the language that we've agreed on with the developer and the last i wrote a small portion of it. but i can read it into the record. >> i don't care about the dispute language is in the right column, correct? >> correct. is that disputed in the written agreement disclosures.
>> they were imposed whether agreed to or not. >> what time period was that? >> this was throughout the 1990s to about 2001. >> the disclosure itself is i think you stated, again you were speaking quickly. just for clarification you stated this type of issue where prospective buyers were not aware of the existence of potentially like a property that had work that created, performance spaces. is that what you are saying. >> i think sue hesser is here and i hope she can stay for testimony. i stood on mr. tieg's side of the table for 15 years to listen to these kind of arguments that sue hesser is making that she's standing on
now that she argues for theatre uses, for industrial uses that were being displaced by live work units coming in next door and units that were not being occupied by artist and didn't understand the adjacent uses and filing nuisance claims filing illegal uses to them and making them to move because they couldn't afford these to stand up to the lawsuits being filed against them. >> okay. what is the concern. for no. 6 on the right hand column, the dispute the mission residents. what is your understanding? >> it is not a dispute. it was raised subsequent to our
mediation and supervisor wiener's office we spoke with representative of supervisor campos' office and representative made some very valid points. if we leave at just the mission, there could be people who would normally be ahead of mission residents on the affordable housing list who perhaps themselves were displaced or perhaps were themselves on the list longer. residents from the tenderloin and other parts of the city. we wanted to fine tune that regulation to make it not competitive with other type, with other people on the list but more of greater need of the most need. >> okay, so what is the status of the language change in terms of the negotiation between the parties? >> well, i think that's a question best asked to the appellant. i believe he may agree to that. and all of it
again. the permit holder, excuse me. >> it's undecided? >> yes. >> okay. as far as the construction time, i don't understand, so you want the appellants want the construction to be limited to 4:00 p.m. and you said something about inside work. the work is to, work would be permitted but only internal work, interior work and not exterior structure. and from noon to 6:00 p.m. on saturday only inside. >> 7:00 a.m. to noon saturday with no restrictions. >> okay. same question to no.
6. have they been discussed an rejected on the last four items here? >> the disagreement on the construction hours is the 4-6:00 p.m.. the condition after that is not so much the disagreement, but we just didn't get wording that we both agree on. >> concept is in agreement. what about the bars? >> bars and entertainment. we didn't hear from the group. we may hear from the permit holder that he may agree to no bars. >> okay. thank you. >> we can hear from the other appellant, miss gamez or her representative, mr. williams.
>> good evening, i'm steve williams representing ms. gamez and she's here. the neighbors and the liberty hill neighborhood association oppose this project because it's out of character with this neighborhood. it incompatible with the neighborhood scale. it's too tall, too dense and has a stark design. the development team describes this project as an exclamation point to demark ate and define the busy congested four lane corridor and that is on the
developers brief. think of an exclamation point and something taller than the rest of the sentence, think of a silo, the rest of a tour. -- tower. the neighbors object because there is no building. this claims the area is filled with these buildings. it's a fundamental agreement and even the matter from which the incompatibility is to be judged. let me suggest to the board that the department are ignoring the basic fundamental principles for objecting the compatibility of the building and the existing neighborhood. the planning code says first you look at the immediate context to determine compatibility when considering the immediate context, the concern relates to the adjacent buildings n this instance if you look at the
adjacent buildings you will see the proposal is more than two 2 feet taller, more than 20 feet taller than both adjacent buildings even though the both buildings are on a much larger lot. the marsh building sits on a larger lot. the immediate context, the adjacent building, this building is not compatibility by any standard that the department has ever used before. let's go to the broader context. the face of the block and their concern is how to project relates to the visual character and scale of the entire face of the block. so the building on this subject block if you look at page 7 of my brief. i know you got brief many months ago, this subject
block face outside of valencia street is full of, again the project is more than two 2 stories taller than every single building on the block phase. if you look at the corner lot. >> what page? >> page 7 of my brief. that shows the immediate context of the subject. >> that is not what you are showing now? >> no. >> if you look at the corner complex the concern here is how does a proposed project relate to buildings on both streets. this is on the onto corner of hill and valencia and you see a proposed project where it would be far taller, three 3 stories taller than the building directly across hill street. here is a separate picture of the building directly across
hill street. the harvey real estate building. three full stories taller than this building and more than two 2 stories taller than every building. if you look at the immediate context, the block phase context, the building is incompatibility with every single building than those context. if we can have an explanation from the department or the developer to explain how it is in context might get to the bottom of this. because the conditional use for judging compatibility visual scale and scope, it's not compatible. the methodology used by the analysis and methodology used by the development team to claim incompatibility is incorrect. it scoured a 4-block area in large buildings and
many of them are historic and precode buildings, that is not helpful. it's just confusion that is compatible and to the design of the building. a compatible building should be to the design of this building. no objective or traditional standard should make this project that is compatible. existing incompatible buildings around the area shouldn't serve to desensitize new projects and design that are supposed an mandated by the code to enhance the neighborhood. so, let's talk about the liberty hill historic district. there is a sign by announcing the liberty
hill historics district. it's the only one in this mission, only one in this town and it begins one lot from this sight. the single and most propose issue adjacent to historic district is since activity and compatibility. size, scale, proportion, materials, even the color of the building is important. with the right approach, the project which has a completely contemporary design such as this one does. looks like it belongs in mission bay. it could fit in if the scale had with respect to this project. it has a negative visual impact to this area. this is a historic neighborhood. i also imposed a picture in the brief of what's directly accrue is the street. it's not as if the historic
district magically ends at the border. if you look directly across the street, page 6 of my brief, the building across the street are also victorian and small scale in nature. you are going to have an exclamation point in the middle of an historic neighborhood. adjacent to --an historic difference. the neighbors are not alone. when the project was reviewed by the historic preservation. if you want to see what they said, they said st proposed project is out of scale with it's surroundings and the hpc is concerned about the proposed density and the project is in need of greater set backs from the neighboring structures. i
will offer those if you want to look at those. the planning commission suggested the building step down as it rises uphill street. it's predominantly on hill street. it's going towards the historic district and 39-foot on valencia street. if you look at the discretionary review action memo, the planning commission also says step down on the project t commission encourages the project sponsor the work with the department staff and encourage a step down along hill street exactly what the neighbors have been asking for the last two or 3 years. it has a hundred percent lot coverage. it has the bear minimum rear
yard which begins at the second floor only and rises at the monolift. that's what my brief was about was how did this building, the design escape any set backs when the hpc set it back and planning commission set it back. before icon included, let me also caution the board that this has been under so much review. i know you received a letter today from supervisor wiener claiming that this building has been pending for 6 years. it's absolutely false. yes the initial application was made in 2007. the developer stopped the project for three years3 years so each of the neighbors could pass. they added the no parking provisions. it hasn't been
pending for 6 years. it's false. let me suggest also the stacks show exactly the opposite. the project has been given favorable treatment and has not received mandatory review required of other similar projects and has not paid the mandatory fees required of other similar projects. for absolutely unknown reasons, this particular project was permitted to skip the inter departmental project review. if you go to the planning code page it says it should have been subject to inter departmental project roef and should have paid an additional $1500 because this is a seismically unsafe lot and this is new construction. mandatory
since 2009. >> is that under submissions? >> it is not. it's just a department form. further the firm itself in direct violation of the planning commission memo randum. prior to the issue of the buildings permit, a community liaison will be appointed. that did not happen. i said how was this permit issued. scott sanchez set it just happened. contrary to the directives. he said is that all you got? this project has not suffered at the hands of the
department. i will turn it over to ms. gamez. i know she wants to say a few words. >> hi, my name is elisa gamez. you may remember me from other appearances here as a community member. i'm here again as a community member and want to underscore on the technical points and the very legal and technical basis that mr. williams just outlined for you. i would like to remind you of the temperature of the neighborhood that is overwhelmed by the development and change. the character of the neighborhood does need to be preserved. the character of the neighborhood does needs
it's defenders. this is a moment of time that we are coming to a commission that is established in the city of san francisco. one of the proper roles of the commission is to be responsive and reflective of this community input. we have here a family and a coalition of groups who are somewhat familiar and somewhat new to this, but we are all residents of the mission and all deeply keshd -- concerned about what is happening. you have developments pleading to work with the neighbors and respond to the issues, to the needs and set backs of other issues. the developer has refused to engage in that process. i really recommend and suggest to you that this is a moment in time where you can make a statement
that says these are not empty commands and these are not empty requirements and the community does have a valid point to want this in a sort of development. thank you. >> i have a couple of questions, just starting with one of the last things you said, the community liaison has not been? >> when i was here in september and it was continued i pointed out the permit was issued in violation of the order. mr. rutgers send me a note that he was being appointed as the community liaison. >> is he not allowed to a point himself? >> if you look at the language. fist it's supposed to be done before the permit was issued. it says the project sponsor
will appoint a community liaison. >> there is someone at least serving that role. >> i just want to know if there is anything to the argument here that no one has been appointed. if someone is appointed and not circumstantial served in that role. >> no one has been appointed. >> he appointed himself. >> okay. excuse me. he appointed himself. >> i guess the question is are there problems with him appointing himself. can you explain that. >> generally it doesn't work very well. >> the self appointed community liaison has not shown up for any meetings. you need to educate us here. i don't know what has happened? >> generally a third party is appointed as a community liaison in this process.
>> it did not happen in this case. >> it has not happened in this case. the developer has dug. i have sent him e-mails and he will not agree. >> were there any other specific examples of this individual not making efforts to interact with the community? it looks like your colleague would like to speak, the last 3 days? >> prior to the last 3 days as it was discovered or pointed out at the board of supervisors hearing a month ago, there have been no meetings at all for more than a year. >> no outreach? >> zero. and for that time at the direction of the board and members of the five votes that we got at the board, there has been a lot of scrambling and we
-- he met with liberty hill, monday 2 days ago, and nothing tangible has resulted. a lot of hollow promises. >> i think i had another question here. the setback. i think i read in the respondents paper that the project would provide a full setback. >> the minimum required the rear yard. >> what's the concern is the the front setback? what setback are we talking about? >> i think it should beset backs stepped up the hill. the billion -- building should be reduced in height. it should be stepped down as it goes up that
hill street. there should be a large setback from the mark. >> has there been proposals exchanged? >> we've asked for reduction in the height. removal floor and stepped it back. it's traditional design parameters as it goes up the hill. >> you just haven't made that clear to us. i just wanted to get more information on that. do you have that in the record that maybe i might have missed? >> no. i didn't put that in the record. it's something that i have asked for continuously. i didn't represent members of the planning commission. they represented themselves and they made proposals on their side. >> is there any documentation or any other evidence of complete reject of proposals that were made? >> i have my e-mails, but i can
submit those at a later time. >> this is helpful so i can see what's been asked for and what has been rejected and what has been disputed. if you have that, that's very helpful. >> i can print it out. >> i don't want to read a lot of document. >> that project on no. 7 on that document means nothing. it says if future legislation changes the building will be out of the residential program. it's meaningless. in the last 3 days i tried to nail him down to something specific. he could agree to all of that today and he won't agree to any of it. >> okay. thank you. >> would you please take the papers off and we can then hear from the permit holder. there
were four appeals filed and you have 28 minutes for your appeal. >> before we begin, we have an architect in the overflow room and we need to locate him. >> good evening commissioners. with me is the architect and the project sponsor. i would like to take a minute to provide a quick overview of the project and direct my discussion to the specific items that have been raised by the appellants. the project proposes to demolish an existing building on the corner
of valencia street. in it's place it will construct a 5 story mixed use building with an active restaurant. i want to stress that the project as designed is entirely with the zoning district and does not accept any cooperation and coding variances. it's proposed development with the height by the code at a lower density that could be developed at the site. it showed a negative declaration. finally can have no significant environmental impact. that was later determined by the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the project is also consistent with the general plan, the eastern neighborhoods plan and the mission street area plan specifically which is